Fwd: RE: More Climate Change news [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Jones <D.Jones@bom.gov.au>
Date: 7/12/2009 9:12am
Subject: RE: More Climate Change news [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: Peter Dillingham <peter@eiluned.org>, John Maindonald <john.maindonald@anu.edu.au>, "anzstat@lists.uq.edu.au" <anzstat@lists.uq.edu.au>
CC:


> I once asked Bob Carter to define for me what he meant by a "cooling trend". Of course, there is no possibility of obtaining a significant  (conventional) trend in global temperature over a period of less than a decade.
>
>
>
> BTW worth noting that against this backdrop of "apparent cooling" November satellite data are the warmest on record. One would expect most months between now and mid 2010 to have record or near record warmth as the current El Nino matures and reinforces the underlying enhanced greenhouse effect driven trend.
>
>
>
> David
>
> d.jones@bom.gov.au
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: owner-anzstat@lists.uq.edu.au [owner-anzstat@lists.uq.edu.au] On Behalf Of Peter Dillingham [peter@eiluned.org]
>
> Sent: Sunday, 6 December 2009 8:44 PM
>
> To: John Maindonald; anzstat@lists.uq.edu.au
>
> Subject: Re: More  Climate Change news
>
>
>
> Carter and other sceptics often use the "No warming since..." argument.
>
> He is clearly smart enough to understand the difference between a datum
>
> and a trendline, and I can only wonder at his motivation.  It's clearly
>
> not science.
>
>
>
> John Maindonald wrote:
>
> > Carter's arguments are peculiar.  He calls the slight average cooling since 2002 "unexplained" (he does not give a figure, but on his trend line it is less than 0.1
>
> > of a degC).  The very large warming since 1920-1940 does not apparently
>
> > require explanation, the justification perhaps being that the data are too
>
> > uncertain?
>
> >
>
> > It gets worse.  In his reply to Glikson, his "tests" look for a direct correlation between
>
> > CO2 levels and temperature.  There's no sense that one has to condition on
>
> > "other effects being equal", no mention of global dimming effects due to SO2
>
> > and related pollutants, no mention of the impact of changes in ocean current
>
> > movements (SOI and all that).  As for the physics that directly relates CO2 and
>
> > methane to greenhouse effects, no mention either.  Other indicators of global
>
> > warming are ignored.
>
> >
>
> > Arthur Holmes, who was a physicist, had pretty much sussed out plate tectonics
>
> > in the 1940s (his widely used text Principles of Physical Geology, published in 1944,
>
> > ending with a chapter on continental drift).  To convince the geological community
>
> > (the same community that initially put up huge resistance to his new-fangled
>
> > radioactive decay dating methods) however, you had to do something close to
>
> > showing them a plate that was actually moving.  With the emergence of
>
> > palaeomagnetic evidence in the mid-1950s,  the unbelievers did finally yield,
>
> > or died out.  There's a style of geology that is pretty much hammers and rocks and
>
> > holes stuff, and that recoils from any exposure to the physics of greenhouse
>
> > warming.  "What you see in the earth, informed by your particular training, is real.
>
> > Physical, mathematical and computer modeling tells you nothing."  Plimer, in his
>
> > book, says as much.
>
> >
>
> > It would actually, be good to have a careful dissection of the scientific evidence
>
> > from an informed sceptic.  I do not know of anything of that kind that makes a
>
> > serious attempt to understand and criticise the details of the modeling.  One has
>
> > to take the modern versions of Avagadro's equations seriously, even if afterwards
>
> > one finds reasons (which there are, but the issue is which way those reasons push)
>
> > why it is not quite as simple as applying those equations directly.
>
> >
>
> > John Maindonald             email: john.maindonald@anu.edu.au
>
> > phone : +61 2 (6125)3473    fax  : +61 2(6125)5549
>
> > Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194,
>
> > John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
>
> > Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
>
> > http://www.maths.anu.edu.au/~johnm
>
> >
>
> > On 03/12/2009, at 11:36 AM, Richard Hockey wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> There are a couple of articles here by Bob Carter and  Andrew Glikson
>
> >> (with lots of pretty charts!)
>
> >> http://www.viewpointmagazine.org.au/download/viewpoint_issue1.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >> (says they are peer reviewed but its not clear by who?)
>
> >>
>
> >> R
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> ----
>
> >>
>
> >> FOR INFORMATION ABOUT "ANZSTAT", INCLUDING UNSUBSCRIBING, PLEASE VISIT http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/anzstat/
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ----
>
> >
>
> > FOR INFORMATION ABOUT "ANZSTAT", INCLUDING UNSUBSCRIBING, PLEASE VISIT http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/anzstat/
>
> >
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> FOR INFORMATION ABOUT "ANZSTAT", INCLUDING UNSUBSCRIBING, PLEASE VISIT http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/anzstat/
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> FOR INFORMATION ABOUT "ANZSTAT", INCLUDING UNSUBSCRIBING, PLEASE VISIT http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/anzstat/
>